More de-errataing, ...and this time they are getting creative Options

[toturi]

I think we've been over that kind of simplistic calculation already, though. It results in funny things like 'dwarves are a better deal than orks', which is true if and only if the penalties actually affect your 'build', etc.

I think that kind of calculation is comprehensive. It results in things like 'dwarves are a better deal than orks' when you choose look at the general overall picture. So in general dwarves are a better deal than orks, but not so if and only if you choose to min-the-penalties and max-the-advantages.

EDIT: If anything, I think the calculations are not comprehensive enough. As Glyph points out below.

[Glyph]

Dwarves have some hefty disadvantages compared to orks. It is not simply that they only come out 5 points ahead of humans, numbers-wise; they also suffer a penalty to their maximum Reaction (which is an Attribute that a lot of combat-oriented characters will have at the augmented maximum to start with). Like trolls, they require custom-made gear and have to function in a world where things are not sized to them. Their size also gives them a lower movement rate. Even at 25 points, I am lukewarm to them at best. 45 points? Forget it.

[Falconer]

No Toturi... That kind of calculation is NOT comprehensive... not by a longshot. DMillers numbers are for most purposes useless.


You're telling me actually raising an attribute AND raising it's maximum by 1 is equal and completely offset by ONLY lowering the maximum by one. Sorry that's just BS. People pay big money in essence and surged to raise attribute maximums. They are very important and quite relevant to builds, especially since the vast majority of lowered attribute maxes never matter to most people.


Glyph:
As far as dwarves, the problem is that the toxin/disease resistance quality is grossly overvalued as a quality. I'd say it's worth 10points max. Why do I say this... it's effectively +2 body, but ONLY for purposes of disease&toxins! Damage soak, armor quanity, health boxes... So an orc with +3 to his body score... vs a dwarf with +1 and toxin is no contest... 20BP for the quality is the source of the point disparity. The other problem is there isn't really a quality in game or surged for non-standard size. Also people don't add a negative quality to reflect their need for specially sized equipment (trolls as well)... that's another -10BP IMO.

His numbers are deeply flawed.. .one because they only reflect the free attribute points. Two because of the above... you reduce the toxin and add the size consideration above and you drop by 20 points.


The last problem is one I'm the only one talking about. Metatype is bought using unrestricted BP/karma. So it's karma spent on 'free' attributes... still leaving the full allotment to buy more attributes.

[DMiller]

Okay, this calculation has taken into account for the improved and impaired attribute. I’m not clear if Nartaki get the bonus edge or not, so in these calculations they do not. If they do they would be 10 BP.

I only counted 5BP for size adjustment for Dwarves and Trolls as a 10% cost increase for gear doesn’t sound like a 10 BP NQ to me. If you disagree add 5 BP to the costs of all dwarf and troll variants.

Race / RAW Cost / Balanced Cost
Human / 0 / 0
Ork / 20 / 95
Dwarf / 25 / 105
Elf / 30 / 65
Troll / 40 / 155
Nartaki / 25 / -20
Gnome / 25 / 100
Harumen / 50 / 115
Koborokuru / 35 / 95
Menehune / 25 / 100
Dryads / 45 / 70
Night Ones / 35 / 45
Wakyambi / 35 / 75
Xapiri Thepe / 40 / 60
Hobgoblin / 20 / 90
Ogre / 20 / 100
Oni / 25 / 90
Satyr / 25 / 105
Cyclops / 45 / 155
Fomori / 45 / 195
Giant / 40 / 160
Minotaur / 45 / 175

-D

[Falconer]

DMiller, we have a goldilocks problem here...

10 is too little... while 20 is too much. That's the reason why in my earlier post when I did those numbers I noted the surged negative quality which reduces an attribute maximum only was -5BP. That's the reason I broke the cap raise and the free stat point itself up into 2. +-5BP for changes in the max. +10 for the free attribute itself.


I tend to believe that metas should spend more for themselves than the points they get for free. (because like I said they get these points in addition to the 200BP they get to spend on attributes otherwise). The only way to make these costs commensurate is to have them pay MORE for the metatype than the free points they get for attributes. (makes it preferable to actually buy attributes instead of just buying a metatype for the attribute points).


But at this point, it digresses into house ruling territory. While you're now doing exactly what I did before. Calculated costs strictly based on the published quality/metaquality costs.

[toturi]

No Toturi... That kind of calculation is NOT comprehensive... not by a longshot. DMillers numbers are for most purposes useless.


You're telling me actually raising an attribute AND raising it's maximum by 1 is equal and completely offset by ONLY lowering the maximum by one. Sorry that's just BS. People pay big money in essence and surged to raise attribute maximums. They are very important and quite relevant to builds, especially since the vast majority of lowered attribute maxes never matter to most people.

I had assumed that DMiller had used the RAW numbers to make his calculations and had accounted for all the increases as well as the decreases. My mistake.

I do not really care how much raising and lowering attribute maximums are valued, as long as you use the RAW values (or at least can extrapolate and substantiate those values from RAW) for it. From my point of view, however, the vast majority of lowered attribute maxes do matter to most people as much as it does for increased attribute maximums. That is why most people do not make a ork Cha-drain attribute mage, precisely because lowered attribute maxes matter.

I'd take a look at your calculations for the races.

[DMiller]

@toturi, The second set of numbers do take into account all of the modifiers for attribute min/max adjustments as well as a House Ruled quality the was -5BP for size adjustment for trolls and dwarves. Of course I feel the second set of numbers is far outside of workable while the first set actually does a nice job of showing the balancing of the races as compared to the RAW costs. I only posted the second set to show the costs if you include the stat min/max adjustments using the RAW rules.

@Falconer, Just for RAW accuracy I used the full RAW rules for my calculations on attribute min/max except where noted (-5BP NQ for size adjustment for dwarf/troll).

All of the numbers I posted were just to give everyone (who cared) a reference point as to why a lot of people seem to think the races aren't balanced. They are not. In my opinion they don't need to be balanced strictly numerically. I'm not trying to argue this, just trying to supply as accurate of information as possible so that others can make informed decisions. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

-D

[Yerameyahu]

But toturi, if they don't make an ork Cha-mage, then that lowered max doesn't matter after all. That's the whole point. People *do* minmax races (as you just said), which vastly affects the power question; this is what I was saying, and that's all. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) You can't just sum the +stats and -stats and call that the 'balanced' number.

I'm not even sure there is an analytical solution to this question, because (obviously) it depends on how you value each detail. We know that those values depend a lot on opinion, on context, on opportunity costs, etc. Agi is 'better' than Str, and on and on. However, we can still try to tweak the costs to be a little fairer.

[Neko Asakami]

Sorry to dredge up an old discussion, but I need to know something about this particular ruling. I'm currently the only player in my Skype campaign without a copy of Herolab. I use Chummer since it's free and it's what I use in my home campaign (not to mention has faster updates, more house rules, and more books in general). What I need to know is 1000 Karma the default setting for creating a new runner in Herolab or is it the 750 Karma from Runner's Companion? I need to know so I can set up the same settings in Chummer as in Herolab so my GM can duplicate my efforts (he trusts me, he just likes to use the Herolab portfolio so he can keep track of everyone at once). I would just ask my GM, except he's away on vacation at the moment and isn't anywhere near his computer to verify.

Thanks in advance!

[bannockburn]

As I see it, this is just Hardy's personal opinion. Herolab makers take it for gospel. Which basically means, do it however your GM tells you to do it (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[Neko Asakami]

Which, no offense, doesn't answer my question. I already know my GM will just tell me to use what Herolab says. I'm trying to (re)build a character, but he is on vacation and can't answer the question, so I asked here hoping someone would just open Herolab and tell me what the default is.

[Shortstraw]

Make a 750 character save it and then spend another 250 karma improving the base then it doesn't matter.

[_Pax._]

1,000 Karma is the default setting for Herolab, yes.

And 62.5% of your karma being allowed for attributes, is hard-coded (can't be changed or adjusted).

[Neko Asakami]

Thank you _Pax._

[_Pax._]

Some more notes about how HeroLab does KarmaGen:

Currently, Karma is not being charged for Metatypes, Free Spirits, Metasapient AIs, Naga, Centaur, Sasquatch, or Pixie. (Despite the rules currently saying you ARE charged for those.)

Karma is being charged for being a Drake or one of the Infected (ghoul, vampire, etc).

[Neko Asakami]

Ah, okay. That would explain why Chummer didn't charge me for being a Dryad. Thank you!

[_Pax._]

Both programs should be charging for metatype, though.

[Sengir]

Both programs should be charging for metatype, though.

At least Chummer can, it's only a matter of default options (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[almost normal]

Some more notes about how HeroLab does KarmaGen:

Currently, Karma is not being charged for Metatypes, Free Spirits, Metasapient AIs, Naga, Centaur, Sasquatch, or Pixie. (Despite the rules currently saying you ARE charged for those.)

Karma is being charged for being a Drake or one of the Infected (ghoul, vampire, etc).

I've got to be doing it wrong then. My version of chummer has no meta-types, and half the qualities are missing.

[Shortstraw]

Have you turned all the books on? Tools > Options > Click all the boxes on the left.

[almost normal]

Have you turned all the books on? Tools > Options > Click all the boxes on the left.

Yeah. Doesn't make a lick of difference.

[Shortstraw]

New character > choose gen system > pick metatype > menu in middle of tab to select metavariant?

[almost normal]

New character > choose gen system > pick metatype > menu on right of tab to select metavariant?

Yeah, There's a pull-down box there, but it's completely blank. Pain in the ass too, I think I'd like Chummer a lot if it wasn't missing so many key things (Spells, Qualities, Gear, etc.), all of which seem to be popping up in other people's version but not mine.

[Shortstraw]

Deucedly odd. Have you told Nebular?

[_Pax._]

Better question: which version of Chummer are you using?

It's possible you're just using an outdated copy, after all.